Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
See, for example, page 7, lines 5-8 (emphasis added) (“In
accordance with a presently preferred embodiment of the
improved method, the first station is disposed at a level
above the second station, and the path is at least
substantially vertical.”), and page 8, lines 13-17 (emphasis
added) (“The means for transferring can comprise means for
pneumatically holding successive blanks during transfer along
the aforementioned path, preferably along a vertically
upwardly extending path (i.e., the second station is
preferably located at a level below the first station).”).
Thus, based on the record before us, the claimed vertical path
of movement during the transferring step does not solve any
particular problem as compared to, for example, a horizontal
path of movement during the transferring step.
Based on these facts, we consider that the orientation of
appellants’ apparatus is merely a matter of convenience based
on considerations such as the available space in the assembly
line and/or the orientation of existing upstream and
downstream machinery with which the apparatus is to interface.
Accordingly, we conclude, as did the examiner, that the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007